Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AnemoneProjectors

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

AnemoneProjectors[edit]

Final (46/0/1); Ended 01:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

AnemoneProjectors (talk · contribs) - It's my pleasure to nominate AnemoneProjectors to become an administrator. He's been with us since June 2006, and he's got over 11000 edits, spread nicely across the different namespaces. He's always civil and generally remains calm in discussions. He usually works on various articles relating to television and music, and has uploaded several images. He also takes part in many deletion debates, and often reverts vandalism. I'm sure AP as an admin will only be better for Wikipedia. Majorly (o rly?) 00:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I have taken part in many deletion debates, and so I would like to help clear the backlog. I've also helped to empty categories that are due to be deleted (which I quite enjoyed doing), so being able to finish the task and delete the category would be good. I'd like to get involved in the backlog of images to be deleted, such as orphaned fair use and replaceable fair use, and others listed at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Also I also revert vandalism quite a lot (from the 3000+ pages on my watchlist), so of course, having the ability to block persistent vandals would be easier than having to wait for someone else to do it.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I'm pleased with most of my contributions, but the ones that stand out for me would be my contributions to articles relating to EastEnders, Big Brother (UK), The X Factor (TV series) and various songs, as these are what most of my contributions relate to. I'm involved in Wikiprojects about EastEnders and Big Brother. At the moment my favourite article is Leona Lewis, I think I've written the majority of that article and added most of the sources. I have a Google News alert set up for several subjects that I'm interested in, so this gives me reliable sources for updating articles with the latest information.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I can't recall any major conflicts that I've been directly involved in, though I have witnessed some revert wars. Things have always seemed to calm down when I mentioned the three revert rule and the fact that the users could be blocked. There have been times when I've felt slightly stressed at people not being civil or not assuming good faith, so I've always taken a short break until I felt ready to come back, and then left messages for the users involved reminding them of the appropriate policy or guideline.

Optional questions from —Malber (talk • contribs) 02:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

4. If you encountered an editor who was also the subject of a biographical article editing their own article, how would you handle this situation as an administrator?
A: I would ask them to read WP:AUTO, and if necessary, I would remind them of the policies about original research and verifiability. Otherwise I would treat them the same as any other user. I don't think there's anything in this situation that I could do as an admin that I couldn't do if I wasn't an admin. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Can you name at least one circumstance where it would be inappropriate to semi-protect an article?
A: Yes. If the page is being vandalised by a single ip or a new user (in which case they should be warned and blocked if necessary), or if there's simply a dispute over the content of the page. Or of course, if the page isn't being vandalised! — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?
A:


General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support per nomination. I trust Majorly majorly. --Majorly (o rly?) 00:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support could definitely use the tools and won't abuse them. Cbrown1023 talk 00:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. A great catch, Majorly. Anemone is a valued contributor to this project, and has demonstrated the maturity and need for admin tools. Nishkid64 00:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support- where on earth did you get your name from? Jorcoga (Hi!/Review)00:54, Saturday, 3 February '07
  5. Support-Seems good. --TeckWizTalk Contribs@ 01:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Well-rounded, but I have to ask the same question as Jorcoga. bibliomaniac15 01:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd prefer not to answer it at the moment. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ZZZ thought you already were support nothing but good things to say about you and your contributions, good luck and look forward to seeing you make WP a better place. The Rambling Man 01:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support per nominator. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 01:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - user is a wikipedian, and therefore deserves promotion. ST47Talk 01:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Weak Support From my review of the nominee's contributions, I can't find any problem regarding trustworthiness. My only hesitation is the apparent lack of need for the tools, and very low participation in wikipedia space, particularly XFD discussions. Agent 86 01:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I see no immediate problems with this application. (aeropagitica) 02:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support per Majorly. S.D. ¿п? § 03:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support looks good.-- danntm T C 03:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support A fantastic editor. Great answers too. i'm surprised to see you're not already and admin. Ganfon 03:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 03:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. WJBscribe 03:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 04:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Approval — Balance of main space edits is good, usage of summaries is good and you are also from the UK which is a bonus, we need more UK based sysops. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 07:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support not likely to abuse the tools. Good user. -- Anas Talk? 12:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support-per experienced user.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 13:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support this nomination. Tim! 17:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. I have only seen this user be fair-minded in discussions. All this talk of clearing backlogs warms my heart, too. — coelacan talk — 23:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support, a friendly user, one of the best, his adminship could only improve Wikipedia. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 00:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support,I see no reason not to give this user the tools. Based on contribs I trust their judgement. James086Talk 07:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Clearing of backlogs sounds good and the fact that they are a friendly user. Import007 08:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support per nom PeaceNT 09:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Terence Ong 15:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support One of the best editors of this project. Deserves to be an admin. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support, per Agent 86 and James086, only the possibility of limited tool use concerns me rather less. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Doesn't look like we'll need future support. Great editor. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 02:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. I'd like to see more varied experience, but the participation he does shows he'd be a good admin.--Wizardman 15:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support I only have good things to say about this editor. Mature and responsible. The JPStalk to me 17:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support--Wikipedier 00:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support, -- Shyam (T/C) 17:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. SynergeticMaggot 18:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support: A very well-rounded and capable candidate. Looks like he knows the ins and outs of Wikipedia and won't abuse the tools. .V. [Talk|Email] 23:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support --A. B. (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support--Húsönd 04:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support No evidence this editor will misuse admin tools.--MONGO 07:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. Great user, I'm sure he will make a great admin. the wub "?!" 00:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. Well-rounded, knowledgeable, could help clear those AfD backlogs that I've only worked on sporadically since I said I would work on them constantly in my RfA. If I had editpercentageitis (worse than editcountitis) I might be wary that this candidate has nearly 7500 mainspace edits and less than 400 Wikipedia edits. But that would be dumb. Grandmasterka 04:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - a valuable contributor who I belive will be a fair and balanced admin. Black Falcon 08:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support, no real reason not to. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 05:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support per nom. VegaDark 06:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Strong Support AP appears to be an excellent Wikipedian and someone that can certainly be trusted by the community gaillimhConas tá tú? 20:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support per nom. Tra (Talk) 00:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Neutral. Seems like a good user, but most of his edits seem to come from the same areas. I'd like to see him venture out and attack more difficult subjects (for him). I'd certainly support in the future. Not a good reason, changed to support.--Wizardman 05:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral Since you list closing deletion debates as the area you would like to focus on as an admin, I would be interested in your thoughts on CSD:G11. —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 18:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/AnemoneProjectors&oldid=1088716366"